So based on what I've read from the rest of this thread, that is not
stated clearly in this pitch, is that a Full Opennet Node is similar to
Tor's Relays or Directory Authorities (I believe you'r saying the later,
but not sure, maybe some combo?). So the only thing that people would
pay for was the
Hey toad,
It's nice to see you back in the community. You know, NS2 can actually
simulate more or less anything you can think of with quite a bit of
accuracy. I know there are also extensions to add parallelism. You may want
to consider writing a Freenet library for ns2 as on option because it wou
Am Montag, 30. November 2015, 17:02:26 schrieb Matthew Toseland:
> > It’s not a zeroday. According to the article, they used a known
> > vulnerability which takes time and careless behavior of the users to
> > exploit.
> Careless behaviour of the users? I didn't see any details? Clearly once
> they
Am Montag, 30. November 2015, 17:02:26 schrieb Matthew Toseland:
> > I just had a funding proposal turned down which included transport
> > plugins and easy darknet introductions with one-time tokens. Florent
> > is constantly working on keeping the crypto state-of-the-art.
> This is great, so is
Am Montag, 30. November 2015, 16:45:43 schrieb Matthew Toseland:
> On 30/11/15 16:23, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
> > Assume that you like to write horror songs in the Star Trek
> > universe. 20 years ago you would have published that under a Pseudonym
> > in specialized journals, like Let’s Filk
Am Montag, 30. November 2015, 20:09:04 schrieb Florent Daigniere:
> > Could we stop the talk about paying for opennet once and for all —
> > and instead start fixing Darknet?
> >
> > We still have no one-click darknet introduction bundles, and no
> > darknet FOAF. As long as I cannot send a friend
My project for university this year involves improving the efficiency of
simulations of Freenet (by configurably bypassing the lower layers) and
using that to test load management. Ideally I'd like to simulate The
Patch and show that it causes problems, and simulate some of the
proposed improvement
On 30/11/15 21:12, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
> Am Montag, 30. November 2015, 20:54:38 schrieb Matthew Toseland:
>> 1) Stick our heads in the sand and sing the glories of opennet, in spite
>> of clear evidence of it being irredeemably broken, or
>> 2) Hope that more people use darknet.
> Binary c
On 30/11/15 21:10, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
> Am Montag, 30. November 2015, 19:58:38 schrieb Matthew Toseland:
>>> Even regular E-Mail providers, G+ and Facebook did not find a way to
>>> get a significant number of users to pay — for a service which is
>>> clearly essential for todays communic
On 30/11/15 21:05, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
> Am Montag, 30. November 2015, 19:36:43 schrieb Matthew Toseland:
>> How much of this is due to default settings where it didn't manage to
>> autodetect via UPnP? How much to users not making informed choices?
> And why do we have such low default se
On 30/11/15 21:04, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
> Am Montag, 30. November 2015, 19:36:43 schrieb Matthew Toseland:
>> How much of this is due to default settings where it didn't manage to
>> autodetect via UPnP? How much to users not making informed choices?
> There are two peaks. Would both be fro
Am Montag, 30. November 2015, 20:54:38 schrieb Matthew Toseland:
> 1) Stick our heads in the sand and sing the glories of opennet, in spite
> of clear evidence of it being irredeemably broken, or
> 2) Hope that more people use darknet.
Binary choices are almost always (self-) deception.
3) Improv
Am Montag, 30. November 2015, 19:58:38 schrieb Matthew Toseland:
> > Even regular E-Mail providers, G+ and Facebook did not find a way to
> > get a significant number of users to pay — for a service which is
> > clearly essential for todays communication. Why do you think people
> > would pay for F
Am Montag, 30. November 2015, 19:36:43 schrieb Matthew Toseland:
> How much of this is due to default settings where it didn't manage to
> autodetect via UPnP? How much to users not making informed choices?
And why do we have such low default settings?
Best wishes,
Arne
signature.asc
Description
Am Montag, 30. November 2015, 19:36:43 schrieb Matthew Toseland:
> How much of this is due to default settings where it didn't manage to
> autodetect via UPnP? How much to users not making informed choices?
There are two peaks. Would both be from UPnP?
Best wishes,
Arne
signature.asc
Descriptio
On 30/11/15 20:32, Dan Roberts wrote:
> I am strongly against this pay-for-opennet strategy until we've exhausted
> other funding options. To my knowledge we have only contacted 3 potential
> donors out of many! Frankly, I doubt we could even put together a
> successful kickstarter campaign at this
I am strongly against this pay-for-opennet strategy until we've exhausted
other funding options. To my knowledge we have only contacted 3 potential
donors out of many! Frankly, I doubt we could even put together a
successful kickstarter campaign at this point, given that we can't bother
to write a
On 30/11/15 19:58, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> On 30/11/15 19:34, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
>> Am Montag, 30. November 2015, 15:29:25 schrieb Matthew Toseland:
>>> 3. Opennet is not secure unless users pay for introduction.
>> Even regular E-Mail providers, G+ and Facebook did not find a way to
>>
On 30/11/15 19:21, Florent Daigniere wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-11-30 at 15:50 +, Matthew Toseland wrote:
>> On 30/11/15 15:44, Florent Daigniere wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2015-11-30 at 15:29 +, Matthew Toseland wrote:
Thoughts?
>>> This assumes that Sybil is the only attack against opennet... whi
On 30/11/15 19:34, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
> Am Montag, 30. November 2015, 15:29:25 schrieb Matthew Toseland:
>> 3. Opennet is not secure unless users pay for introduction.
> Even regular E-Mail providers, G+ and Facebook did not find a way to
> get a significant number of users to pay — for a
On 30/11/15 18:11, xor wrote:
> This mail is split in 2 parts:
> 1. A summary of part 2, which also includes stuff which is not in part 2.
> 2. A copy of a previous reply of mine to a similar proposal. Most of what's
> said there applies to this as well.
>
>
> Part 1 follows:
>
> I think we should
On 30/11/15 19:17, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
> Am Montag, 30. November 2015, 15:55:13 schrieb Matthew Toseland:
>> Not if we jettison the slower opennet nodes, which is also part of the
>> proposal. A lot of our performance issues are actually because we target
>> an outdated lowest common denom
Am Montag, 30. November 2015, 15:29:25 schrieb Matthew Toseland:
> 3. Opennet is not secure unless users pay for introduction.
Even regular E-Mail providers, G+ and Facebook did not find a way to
get a significant number of users to pay — for a service which is
clearly essential for todays communi
On Mon, 2015-11-30 at 20:20 +0100, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
> Am Montag, 30. November 2015, 17:09:29 schrieb Bert Massop:
> > > Please, please PLEASE don't murder me for suggesting this, but
> > > what if we
> > > used social media to bootstrap network connectivity?
> >
> > How is that differe
On Mon, 2015-11-30 at 15:50 +, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> On 30/11/15 15:44, Florent Daigniere wrote:
> > On Mon, 2015-11-30 at 15:29 +, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> > > Thoughts?
> > This assumes that Sybil is the only attack against opennet... which
> > is
> > clearly misleading. Sybil is the
Am Montag, 30. November 2015, 17:09:29 schrieb Bert Massop:
> > Please, please PLEASE don't murder me for suggesting this, but what if we
> > used social media to bootstrap network connectivity?
>
> How is that different from Darknet?
It isn’t, it just makes it easier to connect via Darknet. That
Am Montag, 30. November 2015, 15:55:13 schrieb Matthew Toseland:
> Not if we jettison the slower opennet nodes, which is also part of the
> proposal. A lot of our performance issues are actually because we target
> an outdated lowest common denominator.
Sadly this isn’t true: Most of our users hav
On Mon, 2015-11-30 at 17:23 +0100, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
> > And it would all be a huge amount of work - and without some real
> > scarcity backing it it would achieve very little. What's cheap for
> real,
> > lowest common denominator users but expensive for attackers? AFAICS
> > nothing, n
This mail is split in 2 parts:
1. A summary of part 2, which also includes stuff which is not in part 2.
2. A copy of a previous reply of mine to a similar proposal. Most of what's
said there applies to this as well.
Part 1 follows:
I think we shouldn't randomly change our strategy from what it
On 30/11/15 16:40, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Am Freitag, 27. November 2015, 18:07:50 schrieb
> salutarydiacritica...@ruggedinbox.com:
>> There was a Sybil attack for 4 years. The Freenet 0day has been around
>> for so long that LE contractors have built a kit around it.
> It’s not a
On 30/11/15 16:23, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
> Am Montag, 30. November 2015, 14:58:39 schrieb Matthew Toseland:
>> On 30/11/15 13:40, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
>>> Am Samstag, 28. November 2015, 14:52:23 schrieb Matthew Toseland:
- a research project really.
>>> I don’t think people con
Hi,
Am Freitag, 27. November 2015, 18:07:50 schrieb
salutarydiacritica...@ruggedinbox.com:
> There was a Sybil attack for 4 years. The Freenet 0day has been around
> for so long that LE contractors have built a kit around it.
It’s not a zeroday. According to the article, they used a known
vulne
Am Montag, 30. November 2015, 14:58:39 schrieb Matthew Toseland:
> On 30/11/15 13:40, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
> > Am Samstag, 28. November 2015, 14:52:23 schrieb Matthew Toseland:
> >> But then Freenet was always just one piece of the puzzle
> Okay, first, can we agree on this bit? "Freenet is
On 30/11/15 16:09, Bert Massop wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 5:08 PM, Michael Grube
> wrote:
>> This is true of everything that money can buy. Which is everything, with
>>> the possible (and slightly dubious) exception of social capital /
>>> friends. A big global friend-to-friend darknet is a
On Nov 30, 2015 11:09 AM, "Bert Massop" wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 5:08 PM, Michael Grube
wrote:
> > This is true of everything that money can buy. Which is everything, with
> >> the possible (and slightly dubious) exception of social capital /
> >> friends. A big global friend-to-friend
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 5:08 PM, Michael Grube wrote:
> This is true of everything that money can buy. Which is everything, with
>> the possible (and slightly dubious) exception of social capital /
>> friends. A big global friend-to-friend darknet is a good long term
>> solution but the problem is
This is true of everything that money can buy. Which is everything, with
> the possible (and slightly dubious) exception of social capital /
> friends. A big global friend-to-friend darknet is a good long term
> solution but the problem is how to get to that point.
Please, please PLEASE don't mur
On 30/11/15 15:54, Bert Massop wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 4:29 PM, Matthew Toseland wrote:
>> The price paid to become part
>> of the network infrastructure is mainly a deterrent to large scale
>> attacks, rather than a means of raising revenue.
>>
>> Thoughts?
> I read this as "The price pa
On 30/11/15 15:55, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> On 30/11/15 15:48, Ian Clarke wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 9:29 AM, Matthew Toseland wrote:
>>> 3. Opennet is not secure unless users pay for introduction.
>> Who would they pay, and how would this be implemented in a decentralized
>> way?
> In the
On 30/11/15 15:48, Ian Clarke wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 9:29 AM, Matthew Toseland wrote:
>> 3. Opennet is not secure unless users pay for introduction.
> Who would they pay, and how would this be implemented in a decentralized
> way?
In the first instance they would pay *us* via a Kickstart
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 4:29 PM, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> The price paid to become part
> of the network infrastructure is mainly a deterrent to large scale
> attacks, rather than a means of raising revenue.
>
> Thoughts?
I read this as "The price paid to become part of the network is mainly
a d
On 30/11/15 15:44, Florent Daigniere wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-11-30 at 15:29 +, Matthew Toseland wrote:
>> We have several major problems:
>> 1. We need a major injection of cash.
>> 2. We will not have a big connected darknet any time soon.
>> 3. Opennet is not secure unless users pay for introdu
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 9:29 AM, Matthew Toseland wrote:
>
> 3. Opennet is not secure unless users pay for introduction.
>
Who would they pay, and how would this be implemented in a decentralized
way?
Given that we already have a shrinking userbase despite Freenet being free,
why do you think pe
On Mon, 2015-11-30 at 15:29 +, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> We have several major problems:
> 1. We need a major injection of cash.
> 2. We will not have a big connected darknet any time soon.
> 3. Opennet is not secure unless users pay for introduction.
> 4. Opennet is slow because of lowest comm
We have several major problems:
1. We need a major injection of cash.
2. We will not have a big connected darknet any time soon.
3. Opennet is not secure unless users pay for introduction.
4. Opennet is slow because of lowest common denominator load.
I propose: Freenet Rebooted.
A Kickstarter, bu
On 30/11/15 13:40, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
> Am Samstag, 28. November 2015, 14:52:23 schrieb Matthew Toseland:
>> But then Freenet was always just one piece of the puzzle
Okay, first, can we agree on this bit? "Freenet is one piece of the
puzzle". It doesn't provide a secure operating system t
Am Samstag, 28. November 2015, 14:52:23 schrieb Matthew Toseland:
> But then Freenet was always just one piece of the puzzle - a
> research project really.
I don’t think people contributed or donated for that. Also, and I
agree with earlier complaints about that, a research project does not
need a
47 matches
Mail list logo
